A little over three years ago, I wrote a book about bad political decision-making. Since then, things...have not improved. There's still time to do better, but the clock is ticking.
First thoughts… having participated in party union and government lobbying I’ve taken on the concept of form and function. It’s very difficult to change a thing if it’s built to do something else. Nonetheless infiltration on the party level seems crucial but these institutions can be practically eradicated and yet still rise from the fires and still be worse. Of course we must do it and vote as we wipe our feet and drink water. And in our everyday lives and especially work we can choose to do things that change systems. Community connections and meaningful work that contributes. We don’t need to do the ‘bullshit jobs’ if we don’t want to. And we need to take way more pride in essential work and pay respect to those who keep our daily lives together with their trade skills and their care for others and the food they grow and all that stuff that has been made to be less worthy.
Having just recently voted in a city of Vancouver election in which I was to select one mayor out of 15 candidates, 10 councilors from 59 candidates, 9 school board members out of 31, and 7 out of 32 for the park board, choosing poorly is easy when the ballots are made this complicated. But there can also be merit in simple choices, especially if they can be framed in a way that as many people as possible can understand, appreciate, and make a decision (this would also help with the knowledge problem mentioned in your first substack post a few weeks ago). Rather than try to tackle a bunch of problems at the same time, maybe we should first focus on ones that will be the most productive towards getting the democratic participation and cooperation you write about here. A good place to start is addressing, as you mentioned, addressing the toxic environment that makes it difficult to have a civil, productive, and informed exchange of ideas.
I agree with first part of the first thoughts. It’s very difficult to change a thing if its built to do something else. I don’t think political parties are the appropriate focus of attention. They are shallow, tribal organizations with little substance purpose-built to fight elections. Elections also get too much attention. They are symptoms or health checks of democracy but not the thing itself. Democracy is a bigger, more nuanced concept created to describe what was different about the way decisions were made in ancient Athens. When that civilization died the concept had little use until de Tocqueville used it to describe what was happening in the former British colonies that didn’t want to revert to monarchy or become a totalitarian terror-state like France. Democracy is not government either. It is the process that establishes the purposes, values, powers and governance processes for government bureaucracies that are inherently resistant to it. Are we too dumb for democracy or is the concept itself, as used by the best and brightest political theorists and pundits of our day, too primitive and simplistic?
That's a great point. Often I talk about democratic systems. In the book I get into that and into the idea that broader democratic institutions, sites, etc. are essential, including protests, civil society orgs, and so forth. On parties, I agree, but they don't have to be that way. I guess the question is whether it's worth spending effort to try to change them. The NDP, e.g., could be made to be more grassroots, as it has been in the past.
I liked TOO DUMB and was glad to see a Canadian adding something of merit to this long standing question. I remain very much convinced, as I have been since my university days a long time ago, that the decision making process is itself subject to structural realities that predispose us to making bad decisions. In other words, we are, actively and tacitly, marshalled towards poor decision making by forces often invisible to us. There are numerous layers here, probably too many to go over in a simple blog response, but they involve deeply structural things along with the more overt, plain as day, hiding in plain sight kind of things. Structural inequality for instance has only grown in the last 50 years. The proverbial rich getting richer and poor getting poorer means that for the latter, a greater amount of time, stress and energy is taken up by simple survival. For those people, there isn’t room in their lives to ask all the questions you pose. The game as it were has ended, they can’t play. And I would argue this is by design in our society. Structural racism then pits people against people further dissolving the collective bonds and trust required in a society for common goals & purpose. Individual and collective decision making is undermined by both of these layers. Party tribalism probably deserves its own chapter. Media concentration amplifies the din while often tacitly acting as a clearinghouse for divisive narratives, misinformation and tribalism and we see that in full technicolour in places like Fox News in the US but it is also present in the NY Times and Washington Post, and the three major networks in the US. Overtly delusional points of view are mainstreamed in an effort to appear objective. The media is itself under duress as are journalists in this kind of environment. They are forced to look for and create sellable ‘brands’ rather than doing the good work of investigative journalism. Those few voices who own the media aren’t interested in truth as much as they are in profit(and their own agendas) forcing journalists to bend their practises to acquiesce to these realities instead of chasing the original ideals of the fourth estate. Now you can lay out an ideal process to come to good decisions, but you are doing so inside a toxic cauldron of competing agendas all of whom don’t want you to make good decisions. Because good decisions would lead to less billionaires, less media concentration, less profiteering.
I have been involved in supporting the Alberta Party with the hope that they will bring a change in how politics is conducted. The Alberta Party values public engagement and wants the people who are affected by the policy to be engaged in its development. It’s a great dream but lately I am pessimistic whether this dream can be realized. Barry Morishita was a knowledgeable and well known candidate in the Brooks Medicine Hat by-election. He knew the issues and would have worked hard to advocate for that constituency and promote public engagement but he came in third. The UCP and NDP to a large extent are driven by ideology, are top down and not as likely to promote public engagement between election cycles. It feels like we will be held hostage between election cycles It is very discouraging. The voters of course have the say who is elected but I wish there was a way to control lizard brains and have knowledge and reason prevail when people are at the voting booth.
On the economics, we already have an "income security system" in place. Trouble is, it was created as ad hoc programs over decades to solve specific issues of the day - CPP, OAS, GIS, EI, ODSP, welfare, Canada Student Loans, etc. The question never really gets asked as to whether these are the best ways to deliver income security versus say UBI. And of course, the means-based approach to most of them has given rise to what has become the big business of charity where the rich get to play God as to which ones they choose to support as the benevolent benefactor. To put it mildly, it's a pretty messed-up system that both punishes and rewards with abandon.
If we were start anew and ask how we could best deliver income security, factoring in automation, the need for tax system changes to reflect the nature of the distribution of wealth that has occurred since Milton Friedman and his bonkers shareholder value theory in 1970, would these (and other programs I overlooked/may not be aware of) be our response? Probably not.
The discussion of public policy as a basis for "good government", or even what do we mean by good government, does not really happen, and certainly not in forums that engage across the spectrum of policy makers, citizens, academics, journalists, lobbyists, political parties, etc. that would garner a deeper understanding of the issues, and that could lead to using evidence to guide and adjust policy development, program design, and their delivery.
We also face multiple wicked and interconnected problems, and in the absence of forums for fulsome discussions, we are led down a path toward sound-bite simplistic answers masquerading as good public policy, often under the mantra of government needs to be run like a business, which started in the 1990's (I was in the federal government at the time).
It's won't be easy to turn it in a different direction, yet, it is one of the most worthwhile things we could all try to do.
You've commented before that process is key - give people a decent, honest, workable process and they will produce good results. It seems to me that our leaders go to a lot of trouble to ensure power processes favour themselves. A recent example is the BC NDP disqualifying one leadership candidate for the same thing the favoured one also did. Another is the federal Liberals lying about proportional representation, a process which would make it impossible for them to get a majority with 39% again. How do we get democratic processes past anti-democratic leaders?
This is such an old and widespread problem. And the more people get "inside," the more they seem to buy into the idea that they need to gate-keep. I think building grassroots movements and efforts outside party politics is one way, inside them is another, election participatory democrats is one more still. The key, I think, is building institutions that normalize participation across communities and orders of government.
From an (outdated) tech nerd viewpoint: how much effort should be spent on "open government"?
My naive understanding says information == power (== money) so issues like seemingly increased government secrecy (eg., "it's confidential because it might hurt private interests", "it has a giant NDA penalty clause") and citizen access to regulatory processes (eg. CRTC) seem to be important but pushed down in public interest.
Thanks for this. Going to use it to invite some new people into the community to read the many new things I’ve written so far and will write in the future.
First thoughts… having participated in party union and government lobbying I’ve taken on the concept of form and function. It’s very difficult to change a thing if it’s built to do something else. Nonetheless infiltration on the party level seems crucial but these institutions can be practically eradicated and yet still rise from the fires and still be worse. Of course we must do it and vote as we wipe our feet and drink water. And in our everyday lives and especially work we can choose to do things that change systems. Community connections and meaningful work that contributes. We don’t need to do the ‘bullshit jobs’ if we don’t want to. And we need to take way more pride in essential work and pay respect to those who keep our daily lives together with their trade skills and their care for others and the food they grow and all that stuff that has been made to be less worthy.
Strong agree. Very well put.
Oh man thanks I just saw this 😂
Having just recently voted in a city of Vancouver election in which I was to select one mayor out of 15 candidates, 10 councilors from 59 candidates, 9 school board members out of 31, and 7 out of 32 for the park board, choosing poorly is easy when the ballots are made this complicated. But there can also be merit in simple choices, especially if they can be framed in a way that as many people as possible can understand, appreciate, and make a decision (this would also help with the knowledge problem mentioned in your first substack post a few weeks ago). Rather than try to tackle a bunch of problems at the same time, maybe we should first focus on ones that will be the most productive towards getting the democratic participation and cooperation you write about here. A good place to start is addressing, as you mentioned, addressing the toxic environment that makes it difficult to have a civil, productive, and informed exchange of ideas.
Absolutely, yes! And that's a great example of how we are open to thin participation like elections but not thicker participation.
I agree with first part of the first thoughts. It’s very difficult to change a thing if its built to do something else. I don’t think political parties are the appropriate focus of attention. They are shallow, tribal organizations with little substance purpose-built to fight elections. Elections also get too much attention. They are symptoms or health checks of democracy but not the thing itself. Democracy is a bigger, more nuanced concept created to describe what was different about the way decisions were made in ancient Athens. When that civilization died the concept had little use until de Tocqueville used it to describe what was happening in the former British colonies that didn’t want to revert to monarchy or become a totalitarian terror-state like France. Democracy is not government either. It is the process that establishes the purposes, values, powers and governance processes for government bureaucracies that are inherently resistant to it. Are we too dumb for democracy or is the concept itself, as used by the best and brightest political theorists and pundits of our day, too primitive and simplistic?
That's a great point. Often I talk about democratic systems. In the book I get into that and into the idea that broader democratic institutions, sites, etc. are essential, including protests, civil society orgs, and so forth. On parties, I agree, but they don't have to be that way. I guess the question is whether it's worth spending effort to try to change them. The NDP, e.g., could be made to be more grassroots, as it has been in the past.
I liked TOO DUMB and was glad to see a Canadian adding something of merit to this long standing question. I remain very much convinced, as I have been since my university days a long time ago, that the decision making process is itself subject to structural realities that predispose us to making bad decisions. In other words, we are, actively and tacitly, marshalled towards poor decision making by forces often invisible to us. There are numerous layers here, probably too many to go over in a simple blog response, but they involve deeply structural things along with the more overt, plain as day, hiding in plain sight kind of things. Structural inequality for instance has only grown in the last 50 years. The proverbial rich getting richer and poor getting poorer means that for the latter, a greater amount of time, stress and energy is taken up by simple survival. For those people, there isn’t room in their lives to ask all the questions you pose. The game as it were has ended, they can’t play. And I would argue this is by design in our society. Structural racism then pits people against people further dissolving the collective bonds and trust required in a society for common goals & purpose. Individual and collective decision making is undermined by both of these layers. Party tribalism probably deserves its own chapter. Media concentration amplifies the din while often tacitly acting as a clearinghouse for divisive narratives, misinformation and tribalism and we see that in full technicolour in places like Fox News in the US but it is also present in the NY Times and Washington Post, and the three major networks in the US. Overtly delusional points of view are mainstreamed in an effort to appear objective. The media is itself under duress as are journalists in this kind of environment. They are forced to look for and create sellable ‘brands’ rather than doing the good work of investigative journalism. Those few voices who own the media aren’t interested in truth as much as they are in profit(and their own agendas) forcing journalists to bend their practises to acquiesce to these realities instead of chasing the original ideals of the fourth estate. Now you can lay out an ideal process to come to good decisions, but you are doing so inside a toxic cauldron of competing agendas all of whom don’t want you to make good decisions. Because good decisions would lead to less billionaires, less media concentration, less profiteering.
I have been involved in supporting the Alberta Party with the hope that they will bring a change in how politics is conducted. The Alberta Party values public engagement and wants the people who are affected by the policy to be engaged in its development. It’s a great dream but lately I am pessimistic whether this dream can be realized. Barry Morishita was a knowledgeable and well known candidate in the Brooks Medicine Hat by-election. He knew the issues and would have worked hard to advocate for that constituency and promote public engagement but he came in third. The UCP and NDP to a large extent are driven by ideology, are top down and not as likely to promote public engagement between election cycles. It feels like we will be held hostage between election cycles It is very discouraging. The voters of course have the say who is elected but I wish there was a way to control lizard brains and have knowledge and reason prevail when people are at the voting booth.
On the economics, we already have an "income security system" in place. Trouble is, it was created as ad hoc programs over decades to solve specific issues of the day - CPP, OAS, GIS, EI, ODSP, welfare, Canada Student Loans, etc. The question never really gets asked as to whether these are the best ways to deliver income security versus say UBI. And of course, the means-based approach to most of them has given rise to what has become the big business of charity where the rich get to play God as to which ones they choose to support as the benevolent benefactor. To put it mildly, it's a pretty messed-up system that both punishes and rewards with abandon.
If we were start anew and ask how we could best deliver income security, factoring in automation, the need for tax system changes to reflect the nature of the distribution of wealth that has occurred since Milton Friedman and his bonkers shareholder value theory in 1970, would these (and other programs I overlooked/may not be aware of) be our response? Probably not.
The discussion of public policy as a basis for "good government", or even what do we mean by good government, does not really happen, and certainly not in forums that engage across the spectrum of policy makers, citizens, academics, journalists, lobbyists, political parties, etc. that would garner a deeper understanding of the issues, and that could lead to using evidence to guide and adjust policy development, program design, and their delivery.
We also face multiple wicked and interconnected problems, and in the absence of forums for fulsome discussions, we are led down a path toward sound-bite simplistic answers masquerading as good public policy, often under the mantra of government needs to be run like a business, which started in the 1990's (I was in the federal government at the time).
It's won't be easy to turn it in a different direction, yet, it is one of the most worthwhile things we could all try to do.
You've commented before that process is key - give people a decent, honest, workable process and they will produce good results. It seems to me that our leaders go to a lot of trouble to ensure power processes favour themselves. A recent example is the BC NDP disqualifying one leadership candidate for the same thing the favoured one also did. Another is the federal Liberals lying about proportional representation, a process which would make it impossible for them to get a majority with 39% again. How do we get democratic processes past anti-democratic leaders?
This is such an old and widespread problem. And the more people get "inside," the more they seem to buy into the idea that they need to gate-keep. I think building grassroots movements and efforts outside party politics is one way, inside them is another, election participatory democrats is one more still. The key, I think, is building institutions that normalize participation across communities and orders of government.
From an (outdated) tech nerd viewpoint: how much effort should be spent on "open government"?
My naive understanding says information == power (== money) so issues like seemingly increased government secrecy (eg., "it's confidential because it might hurt private interests", "it has a giant NDA penalty clause") and citizen access to regulatory processes (eg. CRTC) seem to be important but pushed down in public interest.
I guess this is just another resource issue.
Thanks for this. Going to use it to invite some new people into the community to read the many new things I’ve written so far and will write in the future.